How does failing to come up with a testable hypothesis make something a crock? It just means we've failed to test it so far. There are a lot of things in the universe that we don't know how to test yet, that doesn't make them "a crock" does it?
- Luke Bergen
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 9:59 AM, John E Clifford
<kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
The negative results of sixty years (more or less, probably more) of trying to formulate a testable hypothesis that is even vaguely related to what Ed and Ben said. The best of these (possibly testable) were either trivially true (the vocab cases) or blatantly false (the strong metaphysical determination cases), and only the latter looked much like what the two actually said. Of the rest, the untestable ones (though it didn't stop people from claiming to try) yielded no significant results (of course) and the testable ones had nought to do with the professor and the claims adjuster (and the results were still generally negative).
From: "MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com" <MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com>Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2009 9:30:22 PM
Subject: [lojban] Re: Experiments in Sapir Whorf
In a message dated 8/3/2009 15:39:24 Eastern Daylight Time, kali9putra@yahoo.com writes:
SWH is about deep level grammatical categories and ontology, not about vocabulary tricks. (It is still a crock, of course, but at least it is an interesting crock).
What evidence do you have that it's a crock?
stevo